9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EME COURT ], the reason for entertaining a petition was point was confined to interpretation of law and there were no disputed questions of fact. The Apex Court recently passed a detailed order against the judgment of this Court in PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Others [ 2024 (4) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT (LB) ] disapproving the action of entertaining the writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy. In this view of the matter, since the petitioner has a statutory efficacious alternative remedy, it is not required to entertain this petition because the petitioner has not shown any of those ingredients on which interference can be made by bypassing the statutory remedy. Petitioner has not shown that the impugned OI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondents, urged that there exists an alternative remedy and this is spelled out in impugned OIO dated 03.04.2024 itself. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. In our considered opinion, the impugned OIO, at best, can be said to be an erroneous order. No amount of argument is advanced to show that it suffers from any patent lack of jurisdiction. It is trite that despite availability of statutory alternative remedy, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution can be made in certain circumstances. However, this is discretion of the Court and not a compulsion. 6. In M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), the reason for entertaining a petition was point was confined to interpretation of law and there were no disputed qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Emphasis Supplied) 7. In this view of the matter, since the petitioner has a statutory efficacious alternative remedy, we are not inclined to entertain this petition because the petitioner has not shown any of those ingredients on which interference can be made by bypassing the statutory remedy. Petitioner has not shown that the impugned OIO suffers from jurisdictional error or constitutionality of any provision etc., is under challenge. Mere violation of principles of natural justice etc., cannot always be a reason for interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
